Disgraceful! Richard Spencer Sucker-Punched While Giving Interview

GOd, this thread is making me nostalgic for my college days,when we used to argue with our dorms resident Anarchist.
 
varwoche said:
Far be it for me to defend this sorry excuse for a human being. That said...

(1) What specifically has Spencer said or done to merit being assaulted?

(2) Are these things he has said/done illegal? If not, should they be?

(3) What about Joe Random's point about people who think that abortion is murder, and decide to take it out on someone? What does society do about that?

Fuelair and any other flat-out advocates, feel free to weigh in especially on #3.
Click to expand...
Think about it like this: lot's of people (including me) think Trump is actively evil (as Spencer is) BUT for unfortunate but real ethical reasons we work to destroy them in the remove all power from them way rather than killing (though in either case it will not bother me if someone does).

The problem with the other group is they should be being arrested for anything they do violent to a person having had an abortion, seeking an abortion, providing an abortion, physically or psychologically keeping a woman wanting an abortion from seeking one. Abortion is not murder. Killing a child that has been born is. Absolute clarity to me.

And, again, I have felt that way since I first read about it (between 1956
and 1958 (10 -12). Same for putting unmarried pregnant girls in special "homes" as unfit to be in school and related. I have, from my youth, felt women were treated unfairly and stupidly by a load of ********. Very "moral" ********!!!!
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
It's not a value judgment, it's just applying your definition of "evolutionary superior" - if we kill the nationalists and end up with an anational society then this form of society would, by your definition, be "evolutionary superior", no?
Click to expand...

That really calls for a Laconic answer.
 
dudalb said:
So having Private Property is violent and murderous?

I remember in college we had a anarchist who screamd about how private property was evil,quoted Prodhon's "Property Is Theft" to the point of making people nauseous, but when his apartment was burgled and his stereo and television stolen, he acted like it was a Crime Against Humanity.
Click to expand...

Did he entertain the idea that the theft was a form of violent intimidation, intended to stop him from undermining capitalism?
 
theprestige said:
At what point does it change from abortion to murder, for you? Is it literally at the moment of birth?
Click to expand...

Since 'murder' is a legal concept, whatever the code says it is. As far as when a fetus should, morally, obtain human rights, I don't know. I don't think it's the instant of conception. At which stage of development do the police routinely launch miscarriage investigations?
 
caveman1917 said:
Which test?



It seems to have a decisive role already. Try changing the money distribution. Go to your nearest store, take something and walk back out without "paying" and thereby altering the legally mandated money distribution. See who comes showing up believing they are justified in using violence to stop it...



Economics is the basis. Who should control the means of production in your view?



Which unicorn/nation?



Uhu. This is where it goes seriously downhill. Have you considered that if you have no borders and no classes that those 3 problems wouldn't even exist?

Do you mean that you want to be some combination of Isabella of Castillia and Vlad the Impaler? Or that you'd want someone else to do that?



Why?
Click to expand...

I think it was this online test I took: https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I'll have to get back to you on the other stuff as I've been out dancing an t's three in the morning and I'm really *********** drunk.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's not what "false dichotomy" means. It refers to cases where there are MORE than two possibilities, but one tries to arbitrarily limit consideration to only two. You have done the opposite: claim that two different things are actually the same.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely what you did. You gave the either/or choice:

So either you think the prosecutors were wrong (on what basis?), or you think a jury would consider Spencer's attacker to have a reasonable fear of imminent threat from Spencer (which is laughable). Otherwise, they simply aren't comparable.
Click to expand...

There are several options which leave them still comparable. Textbook false dichotomy.
 
MostlyDead said:
Which is precisely what you did. You gave the either/or choice:
Click to expand...

It's only false if there are more than two choices. You demonstrate that it's false by showing that there's more than two choices. But you claimed that there's only one choice, since they're basically the same.
 
Noztradamus said:
You expect people to care that some kind of white supremacist. got shot?

(cue smallest violin)
Click to expand...

What white supremacist? No if it was a white supremacist who got shot then people would be all over it with denunciations and "muh free speech", it's because it's not a white supremacist who got shot that people aren't bothered.
 
theprestige said:
Before the anarchist arrives, there is still hope for redemption. The owner may yet relent and make the use of more freely available.
Click to expand...

Yeah because that happens, like, all the time dude. Businesses voluntary socializing the means of production.

The freedom fighter may still take it and make the use of it more freely available. The world may yet be improved by the use of this thing.
Click to expand...

They did and it was.

But after the anarchist arrives, there is no more hope for redemption. The thing is destroyed, and no-one may ever benefit from its use again.
Click to expand...

Destroyed? I'd rather see it as something new getting created. That limo is more useful and beneficial to me in the new arrangement than in the old one.

Anarchists only ever make the world worse than it was before. Even property ownership does not diminish the world as much as anarchism does.
Click to expand...

Depends on how you measure how much something "diminishes the world". As to private property, about 291.000 people in the US die each year due to poverty. As to anarchism, every once in a while a window breaks or something.

Also, "property ownership makes me destroy useful things!" is a profoundly childish excuse.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, although I wouldn't call 291k people "useful things". If you're talking about the limo I'd call it taking a useless thing and rearranging it into a useful thing, hence an act of creation and not destruction. If you're talking about the windows who got broken, who cares anyway?

Of these I would indeed call private property an instance of violence and the rest instances of speech.
 
Last edited:
So, what do you get when you have total collapse of a post-industrial society and anarchy? A lot more than Broken Windows (Read: over 80% of the population dead within a year due to famine and disease). You also get warlordism and brutality, IOW Mad Max. Now Anarchists imagine themselves as Lord Humungus, but they would be more likely to be crushed under his boot.
 
caveman1917 said:
Destroyed? I'd rather see it as something new getting created. That limo is more useful and beneficial to me in the new arrangement than in the old one.
Click to expand...

Maybe I missed this upthread, but the limo owner worked to purchase, maintain, and provide gainful employment for the employees. The anarchists seized the fruits of that labor for their own use in typical fascist form (in your view, to express speech). So you are saying that anarchists have the liberty to employ fascist tactics in seizing the fruits of others labor? If so, you are saying that by extension anyone is free to exert force against others, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom